Bigger army

[Young KH]

Finally someone got what I was trying to say.

 

[aesop081]

Finally someone got what I was trying to say.

I meant its time to pay the bill and stop neglecting the armed services.  I, in no way, agree with your vision for the CF.

 

[Torlyn]

My guess is that, for defence planners, naval capability offers the most "bang for the buck" in terms of manpower, resources, and political capital.  We can send ships with a few hundred sailors to the Persian Gulf or we can have thousands of soldiers and airmen with big footprints operating on land where the potential for casualties is much higher.  Since nothing the CF can do with our current Force Structure and Defence Posture will prove to be decisive, we have to send our military to earn the seat at the council fires, and the Navy seems to be the most economical way of doing so.

Not a sleight to our Naval brethren, only a recognition of what Maritime projection offers strategists.

I agree with you Infanteer, however I'll add that I think part of it is the diplomatic aspect that goes with having a CPF in a foreign port.  As I've heard from my soon to be MARS bretheren (I LOVE being able to say that now) they spend a bit of time doing the "wine and cheese" thing, with foreign dignitaries.  Given my lack of experience, I can't talk for the other branches, but it seems that the Navy does this more often, and perhaps has been helped a bit more because of it?

T

 

[Gunner]

I agree with you Infanteer, however I'll add that I think part of it is the diplomatic aspect that goes with having a CPF in a foreign port.   As I've heard from my soon to be MARS bretheren (I LOVE being able to say that now) they spend a bit of time doing the "wine and cheese" thing, with foreign dignitaries.   Given my lack of experience, I can't talk for the other branches, but it seems that the Navy does this more often, and perhaps has been helped a bit more because of it?

Don't forget about the "made in Canada" aspect of most of the capital ships in the navy.   The Frigate program was a huge influx for Canada's shipbuilding industry and there was a large effort to interest other countries in buying the Canadian build Frigate (I don't believe they ever materialized).   The army and air force have less capabilty to "buy Canadian" (no tank, artillery or tacitical aircraft) and often the results are very poor (ie LSVW...).

 

[KevinB]

FWIW I think the Navy has also a much better unified front toward procurment that the other elements.

Not to simplify their mission - but it appears as they have a vision of how to work and go and do.  Airforce has the fighter pilots, BUFF pilots (both SAR and Airflift), RotorHeads etc.  In the Army we have Light versus Track Toads and the different Arms fighting each others.

 

[Jaxson]

i know most wont agree to what i say, but a bigger army demands more money which it wont get unless something else gets its funding cut, i think our health care should only be free to those who are in welfare to very low income house holds, everyone else i feel should pay,
http://www.cihi.com/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_29may2002_b6_e      according to that we spend $$102.5 billion   on health care if we cut the rich and even middle class income house holds off free health care, would probably save more then half of that which could be put to the army , but then the question becomes... would the Canadian public every agree to this? probably not... i cant say id like to pay for all my health care, but in all honesty, id prefere to know my country is safer from terrorists and such instead of knowing "well if i get bombed, its free for them to fix me"   this is just my opinion, and i know it will probably not be welcomed by most of you nor would it probably ever happen.

 

[Young KH]

Come on fellows this is supposed to be about (Bigger ARMY)

It's nice that we are all trying to rethink the acquisitions that the Air Force of Navy has received, But it doesn't matter. That is History and no amount of belly aching is going to change that. What we need to discuss is what can be done in the future to improve the Army's' plight on the ground.

I figure that Money is the problem and if we use the same tactics as the Government (cutting troops to save money) the we should cut where it is costing us the most and use the money to fix the problem. I believe (and yes I know that I have no knowledge(BULL) but in my view, we have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. We are top heavy on the command structure. We almost have as many Generals now as we had at the height of the second world war. When they were in command of 2 or more Million troops. Forgive me if my numbers aren't exactly right but why do we continue to promote top Officers and at the same time reduce the number of soldiers.

 

[KevinB]

. We almost have as many Generals now as we had at the height of the second world war. When they were in command of 2 or more Million troops. Forgive me if my numbers aren't exactly right but why do we continue to promote top Officers and at the same time reduce the number of soldiers.

:

2million...

Please THINK about our population then - or http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/1st_CD_Inf_Div.php 

The First Canadian Army consisted of 1/4 million men, based in England and organized in two corps, subdivided into 5 division and 2 independent tank brigades. The First Canadian Infantry Division sailed from Halifax in December, 1939, but it was three years before they were called into action.

 

[Young KH]

So I take it that you disagree with me that there are too many at the top and no enough troops to do the job.

 

[KevinB]

I would prefer more bayonets - as would 99% of us - but please show me where to cut - rather than make a broad strokes...

Unfortunately our tech driven ARMY requires a number of officers to administrate projects - projects that have a number of sernior NCO's and Officers that skew our numbers - We need these projects and I KNOW that I as a Cpl (even a stellar staff writing one as myself  ) could never hope to fill those roles.

As well due to the rank consious nature of Armies we require a number of senior officers in Liason roles which further skew %'ages

 

[Young KH]

KevinB

Your profile says Mcpl but your answer Says officer at the top complaining about numbers that I right from the start that I wasn't sure on and avoided the question about being too heavy at the top.

What has become of these sites are they just a place to correct spelling errors or does anyone really want opinions. After all that is why we are in all these places to protect the people right to there opinions. I wasn't asking someone for the exact number and deployment dates of troops in the second world war. I was however stating that there are too many top officers and not enough soldiers and I wasn't meaning office staff.

 

[Old Sweat]

The number of generals in the Second World War is a red herring and is rarely stated correctly. The maximum strength of the Canadian army at any one time was reached in March 1945 and that was somewhere over 400,000 all ranks. Of that, about 250,000 were outside Canada and no more than 160,000-170,000 were in First Canadian Army (FCA). The actual figures can be found in Volume I of the official history. By my estimate there were at least forty officers of the rank of brigadier and above in FCA, plus a multitude of others in L of C, reinforcement and other supporting and training establishments overseas as well as a sizeable command and control structure at home.

 

[Young KH]

Cuts?????????????????? Who was talking about CUTS?????????????????? That is the problem in the first place.

What the Army needs now is increases. I wasn't suggesting cutting top officers but in putting more soldiers or as you call them Bayonet's.

Cuts is what got us to where we are today, and is not the answer is any way shape or form.

 

[Young KH]

Well  Old Sweat

Why are you so quick with the WWII stats? Stop complaining on what I had to say and give us your opinion on how to improve the Canadian Army. Please

Seems to me that the only people willing to stick their opinions out on the line get it quickly chopped off, by legions of tec (fly poop out of pepper pickers) who themselves don't dare or care to give their own opinions.

 

[KevinB]

Profile says CPL

I just wish there where 10 pay level incentives...


Dont get me wrong I think there is a lot of redundant pers in the CF, problem is it is hard to identify and areas where I as an 031 would like to cut others feel are needed.  I've looked at a lot of places but when you listen to different project managers etc they can come up with pretty convincing reasons as to why those people (specifically senior Officers and NCO's) need to be retained in those areas.

By Cuts I meant in unnecessary or redunant PY's so you could remuster them or release them and free up funding for more shooters.

 

[Young KH]

Sorry KevinB

My mistake, but it sure seems at times that there are no one out there with any opinions and when someone dares to make one, that there are hundreds of Snippers waiting to pick any statement word by word instead of looking at the content, and what was actually meant. This site started 5 years ago according to someone yesterday and was dead for at least the last year or so, I write one suggestion and am attacked from all sides. Mind you it has opened up the site again.

Here's to more Foot Sloggers, The heart of every Military.

 

[Young KH]

I believe my Point has just been proved. This site was hot when cutting my opinion but was very conspicuous by its total lack of postings as soon as I ask them to come back with their opinions and views.

WARNING to anyone postion anywhere on any site. There are people out there sitting and watching in wait for key words or groops of words, ready to jump all over you and what ever you might say. Not because you are wrong but more because you dare to talk about something that they believe, the only opinion that counts is their own, or because they are working the posts for the specific reason of making sure that their own funding or interests are are not somehow undermined.

I have not been here that long but in every topic there is the same trend to the point (when they can't think of anything else to say) of telling people that they don't know what they are talking about, insults and yes even name calling. These same people have never had an idea of their own or haven't the guts to post them but have all kinds of mouth, opinions and facts that only  spending their time cutting everybody Else's up.

It's almost as if we are being watched and monitored, kept in line so that nothing changes and they can continue to waste the Tax payers monies but not improve the situation at all.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I believe my Point has just been proved. This site was hot when cutting my opinion but was very conspicuous by its total lack of postings as soon as I ask them to come back with their opinions and views.

WARNING to anyone postion anywhere on any site. There are people out there sitting and watching in wait for key words or groops of words, ready to jump all over you and what ever you might say. Not because you are wrong but more because you dare to talk about something that they believe, the only opinion that counts is their own, or because they are working the posts for the specific reason of making sure that their own funding or interests are are not somehow undermined.

I have not been here that long but in every topic there is the same trend to the point (when they can't think of anything else to say) of telling people that they don't know what they are talking about, insults and yes even name calling. These same people have never had an idea of their own or haven't the guts to post them but have all kinds of mouth, opinions and facts that only   spending their time cutting everybody Else's up.

It's almost as if we are being watched and monitored, kept in line so that nothing changes and they can continue to waste the Tax payers monies but not improve the situation at all.

Oh please...  :

You've posted a bunch of nonsensical claptrap masquerading as opinion, then get upset when people challenge you.  I've more or less avoided posting on this (very old) thread, simply because what was being said was so devoid of intellectual content.

The fact of the matter is that you (a) have very, very dated knowledge of what the CF is/does; (b) managed to slag the other two services, then backpedaled when called on it, and (c) will make statements ("UN missions" and "too many officers" springs to mind) without the slightest of facts to back them up.

Educated opinion is more than fine - that's what the site's for.  Most of the people you refer to in such derogatory terms have posted opinions all over this site, many in violent disagreement with government policy - do a search and you'll see.  There's no conspiracy here.  But each one of them is speaking either from direct personal experience or from researched, established facts.  Do the same and no one will jump on you.

 

[Old Sweat]

Mister Young

I was quiet after your previous outburst because I did not trust myself to reply in a rational manner. The reason I questioned your use of patently false Second World War figues is that I have not time at all for people who cannot be bothered to find out things for themselves.

As for not offering a comment on the size of the army,  I have been long retired and do not consider myself competent to produce any sort of figure without doing more research than I can afford to do.

If your ideas are clear, sane and doable, then you should have nothing to worry about when posting them.

 

[KevinB]

Teddy did it much better than my rant.